Translation: I engaged mouth before brain.
Classic Dunning-Kruger Effect. LOL
Thanks for admitting you stopped reading when you found what fit your paradigm.
Unattractive people overrate their looks
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
Classic Dunning-Kruger Effect. LOL
Thanks for admitting you stopped reading when you found what fit your paradigm.
In a survival situation, do whatcha need to do.
That said, while young single women might go on a hunt, I doubt many mothers would leave their young unprotected to go away for a day or three.
As the infant and child mortality stats proved, either the mother or the father would have to watch the kids.
Don't forget that they lived in groups with extended family. Aunts, uncles, g-parents, etc. took care of the kids while the women were off either helping after the hunts, or during the hunts. Women also participated in game drives, where buffalo or other large animals were stampeded over cliffs.
Translation: I engaged mouth before brain.
Classic Dunning-Kruger Effect. LOL
Thanks for admitting you stopped reading when you found what fit your paradigm.
I scanned the whole paper, and didn't stop when I found a "gotcha!" sentence.
Individually, each of the six studies have weakness and limitations, which is valid to consider.
The authors of this paper obviously wanted to collectively assess the six independent studies to offset the weakness of any individual one.
Collectively -->
122 judges,
1,180 participants,
and six independent research studies
To discover the low-IQ, low-info folks here, just look to see who can't refute the OP, and who thanked him for not refuting it.
Thanks for the link, son. You epitomize this statement from your link:
This basic finding that the incompetent overestimate their abilities – termed the Dunning-Kruger effect – has been replicated in dozens of studies (for a review, Dunning, 2011)...
...Overall, there is overwhelming evidence that incompetent people fail to recognize their own incompetence.
You claimed to have a college education but always ran from your field of study. Why? Is it embarrassing?
Even if it was Finger-painting or basket-weaving, I'm certain you have learned something.
Keyboard major? lol
I have had one sociology class and zero psychology classes in my entire life, so I just can't write very intelligently about social psychology at the level of research.
That is a topic I will defer to you.
At a rudimentary level, I assume it is a human tendency to overrate one self, whether it is looks, competence, or fighting ability.
Female lions, cheetahs and leopards hunt when they have babies. They seem to hide the babies when they hunt.
Obviously, that's not a great analogy for humans, but I bring up the topic of cheetahs whenever I can!
I have no doubt the tribe worked together. Why do you think women were the hunters and men played Mr. Mom in tribal societies?
Correct. Part of the problem is the length of infancy/childhood. For humans, it's 13-15 years old in primitive conditions. For cheetahs it's 18 months.
https://cheetah.org/learn/about-cheetahs/
I have no doubt the tribe worked together. Why do you think women were the hunters and men played Mr. Mom in tribal societies?
I don't recall stating that men played Mr. Mom, most likely because I didn't. lol That being said, many Native American groups (as all human societies) had male members who were two-spirits. Some of these men performed women's traditional roles, including cooking, childcare, and garment-making.
Here is an interesting article on more recent (last few centuries) hunter-gatherer society women.
Early African Women: Hunters, Warriors & Rulers
And another:
Gender roles in history: women as hunters
It is true that many primitive societies assigned rigid roles to the sexes, but many were more egalitarian and utilized members' talents in the roles they were best at.
I think science will just have to look at the data and evidence.
To me, it seems like a pretty good hypothesis that it was usually men throwing spears, if you base that on the anthropology of modern stone age tribes in New Guinea and Amazon.
On the other hand, the paper I posted seems to provide evidence that our gender assumptions about Paleolithic peoples might be a bit skewed.
I think we have to also look at the social behavior of our closest relatives in the animal kingdom for analogs; do female baboons hunt?
To discover the low-IQ, low-info folks here, just look to see who can't refute the OP, and who thanked him for not refuting it.
I think it is always a good idea to scrutinize scientific methods.
But if one is going to claim the paper only used two judges, when in fact the paper collectively used data from 122 judges and 1,180 participants, then one is not doing an adequate job "scrutinizing".
When speaking about primitive tribes, regardless if 50 years ago or 50,000 years ago, the human variable remains the same. As previous links showed, there is a lot of evidence showing lifespans and infant/childhood mortality rates. While studying tribes 50,000 years ago can't be done directly, tribal societies over the past few hundred years have been extensively studied and can be used for comparison to what data has been found on the older societies.
AKAIK, much of the data correlates; human beings remain consistent and predictable in primitive conditions. While there will be anomalies like Amazonians, the Agojie and China's all-female army under Lin Siniang, they are the exception, not the rule.
I get the feeling that by saying "women tended the campfires", some here equate that with "a woman's place is in the kitchen". That is absolutely not what I'm saying.
Primitive societies are closer to Marx's "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". A primitive tribe, besides being limited by its infant/childhood mortality rate, is also limited by the amount of food available. Less food per person means conflict and starvation. A tribe would either split to find better food sources or kill enough tribal members to be sustainable.
While men and women are equal intellectually, they do have differences in how they think. This goes back to my point about a hunter's mindset versus a gatherer's mindset. More to the point for attractiveness; it applies to why men are more visually-oriented and non-verbal than women who tend to be more nurturing and verbal.
Men being better hunters and women being better camp-tenders is not a Zero-sum game. It's the exact opposite: it's a win-win in terms of survival. A true Yin-Yang where the sum is greater than the individual parts.
Again, modern society alters this basic formula, but if we are to better understand human beings in 2022, then it's best to try to understand how and why they survived from a few thousand or less near extinction about 70,000 years ago to become the apex predator of the planet with over 8B human beings.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5756541/
Comparative psychology and sociology with animals, especially simians, offer clues to basic/root behavior such as sexuality. Higher up the intellectual scale, human beings progressively end up standing alone. Therefore, studying humans in primitive conditions offer greater clues than observing apes in the wild when it comes to understanding human society, IMO.
Men's natural upper body strength makes them better spear chuckers than women even though women can throw spears too.
Additionally, as the abortion arguments often point out; men can't get pregnant. With a high infant and child mortality rate, it becomes important for tribal survival that the women and children be protected...a task which the tribe's best spear chuckers are most capable.
It also makes the men relatively more expendable since one man can father many children (see Herschel Walker) whereas women can bear children (usually one at a time) and are required to both nurture the infants (men can't nurse either) and tend the younger children.
As such, when it comes to "attractiveness" in primitive societies women would look at men's shoulders for their spear-chucking abilities and men would look at a woman's hips in terms of child-bearing ability.
Life is Golden
The Sage
Science has shown symmetry determines true beauty. The more symmetrical the features the closer one looks to human. Even infants recognize and stare at more beautiful faces.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...01907/why-are-symmetrical-faces-so-attractive
https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/why-babies-are-attracted-to-beautiful-people
So no, beauty is not completely subjective.
Granted, someone who is unattractive with a good personality can appear to look better, probably because you are overlooking the flaws. Just as someone exceptionally attractive can begin to look ugly to you if they are mean or vindictive because the flaws then become magnified. But none of that changes the basic bone structure and measurements which determine symmetry.
And no, I don't know why some ugly people think they are attractive but it is true. But I have witnessed this myself. Really strange.
Wrong.
The comment you quoted was in reference to my comment that took all six studies into account.
What did you call it: 'Translation: I engaged mouth before brain.'
Kinda sad when you insult someone for doing something.
NOT FIVE MINUTES after you did the EXACT, SAME THING.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...le-overrate-their-looks&p=5404895#post5404895
So be it.
'No fascist leader thought they were evil'?
Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.
Whatever...I an not doubting that many people overinflate their visual, superficial worth.
I am simply stating that these studies were highly flawed.
The first five were next to useless.
And the last one's, apparent parameters left it highly suspect as well.
Especially considering that appearance is an INCREDIBLY, subjective matter.
You need GIGANTIC numbers of people, across numerous societies/countries/communities to remotely establish what is and what is not 'attractive'.
These studies took 124 (at MOST), largely, young people from one, tiny part of Europe?
And blew it up to assume that most, human being's are like them.
Lazy science - to say the least, imo.
One would assume, being that you keep claiming to be so INCREDIBLY intelligent/well read (if I recall), that you would know this.
Though, you obviously, do not.
We are done here...for now.
Have a nice day, now.
Last edited:
